NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18 Read Newsmax: Earth Cooled by Half a

LOL!

Didn't I ask you in another thread if you thought NASA was a big conspiracy?

Maybe even a terrorist organization?

 

The Earth is cooling in relative temperature based on expected warming...it is still warming however and is expected to continue doing so. Our planet should be and was expected to enter an "Ice Age" phase due to solar orbit and axial tilt variation as it has on a well documented 100,000 year +/_ periodic history but atmosphere changes seem to be tempering, if not eliminating this change.

 

Is that what you were trying to say?

Doomsday Environmentalism is a movement rather than a tightly organized conspiracy

So they dont wear white hoods or black antifa masks

 

Never once did I compare global climate change on the same danger level of Senator Palpatine driving his Death Star towards Earth so he may use its giant laser beam.

That's entirely your prejudice.

 

Liberals in the 1970s were largely convince the Ice Age was going to destroy civilization the way they expect man-made-global-warming to do today

Paul Newman even starred in a film about the horrors of man-made global cooling

And come to think of it cooler temps are much worse than warming

 

That's nice.

How about some more up to date and critically analyzed info. Something, like, after I was born.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-newsmax-earth-cooled-by-half-a.532916/page-3

 

I guess I’m out of touch since I didnt hear about that new danger

When is he supposed to arrive?

 

I edited my post.

 

I was waiting for an honest reply. Searching for the entire paragraph in Google quickly returns the forbes article.

Exactly.

 

Finding out that this claim was total BS was part of what made me realize how blatantly dishonest the anti-warming propaganda machine was. The magazine covers looked compelling in high school, but once I learned to actually gauge scientific opinion in peer reviewed journals, I realized no “cooling consensus” had ever existed.

Global warming was proposed in 1896, and got a boost in credibility starting from Callendar’s work around 1938-1961. By the late 50’s we knew the oceans weren’t absorbing CO2 as well as we thought. By the 60’s and 70’s we had growing evidence from Keeling that we were driving up CO2 levels. LBJ received a report on it.

Then in the 70’s, some people thought particles might block out the sun and overcome the universally acknowledged warming effect of CO2. But by the late 70’s it was already looking like they probably wouldn’t. That’s the narrative of the scientific literature.

 

One problem with your statement is industry during that time was still in its infancy stages and thus if the warming was occuring way back then you are tacitly admitting that human activity at least on the industrial side isn't the main or even a major factor. What the world did have back then in plenty was agriculture and ranching. If its not industry and instead its agriculture and ranching why are all the doomsdayers focused on cars and factories then?

This crazy obsession with something that we can't do anything about short of nuking China has diverted attention from far more immediate problems like ocean pollution (once again mostly from China and the East) and dangerously low levels in the Ogallala aquifier. These are immediate problems that can be dealt with but the so called environmental movement only give lip service to and nothing more and obsesses over global temps which nothing can be done about.

 

To clarify, there was no warming trend in 1896. Just an observation regarding CO2 emissions and the greenhouse effect.

 

Others have spe

Thats interesting

Maybe the left will succeed in proving man-made-global-warming someday after all

 

"spe"?

 

Just a thought I never finished

 

Yep. It's true. The data does not lie. The data also says the Earth warmed by 0.84C in the 24 month period ending in February 2016.

I guess since we've established that NASA is a trustworthy source the conclusion is that the Earth has warmed significantly since 1960 eh?

 

About 150% of the warming over the last 50 years is caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Aerosols and natural processes account for about -50% of the warming. The net effect of all anthroprogenic mechanisms (greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land use changes) are estimated to account for 90-110% of the warming since 1960.

 

Remember that the following is a small list of other independent institution that corroborate NASA's dataset.

NOAA GlobalTemp
HadCRUT
Berkeley Land+Ocean
RSS
ERA Reanalysis
JRA Reanalysis
CFSR Reanalysis
NCAR/DOE Reanalysis
NCAR/NCEP Reanalysis
GFS Analysis
ECMWF Analysis
UKMET Analysis

...and many more.

 

Only 150%? What caused the rest of the warming?

Please class, no giggling while we wait for the answer....​

 

Arrhenius calculated the warming effect of CO2 in 1896 using empirical data from laboratory experiments. Callendar then matured the theory of global warming beginning in 1938. These scientists predicted that global warming would occur before it happened. Note, that most of the warming prior to 1950 was natural. It's the warming after 1960 that is almost entirely anthroprogenic. A special mention goes to Fourier who correctly identified the atmosphere as being the mechanism by which Earth retains heat. He did this in 1824.

 

There's actually some truth to the statement that models aren't predicting sea ice loss very well. They are severely underestimating the melt rates right now. The IPCC's official position on the first ice free year in the Arctic is around 2050, but it's not looking like this prediction is going to hold. At the current melt rates we'll be lucky to make it to 2040. And many are starting to mention 2030's as the more likely time frame. We'll see what the IPCC goes with in their next update. They may stick with 2050, but don't hold your breath.

 

This is absolutely false. At this very moment global sea ice extents are at record lows.

 

NOAA's got a great site on what they call "paleoclimatology" and it shows earth temps going back hundreds of thousands of years. They show that even a one degree shift is small potatoes by historical standards.

However this entire greenhouse/global warming caper is totally devoid of science. Like, we got a total of some 200 terawatts of solar energy hitting the earth, and considering that the earth is 6 x 10^24 kg w/ a specific heat of say, 0.9, then it'd take over ten thousand years for even a 100% greenhouse effect to warm the earth just one degree.

Does anyone here follow the science on this?

 

Land use changes account for a few percent. The reason why CO2 and other GHGs are above 100% is because anthroprogenic aerosols and other natural processes are producing a cooling effect equal to about 50% in the downward direction.

 

Everyone ignores my references.